Central Administrative Tribunal - Ahmedabad
Nandaben Kantibhai Parmar vs M/O Defence on 30 June, 2022
:: 1 :: O.A./451/2017
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
AHMEDABAD BENCH
Original Application No. 451/2017
Dated this the 30th day of June, 2022
Reserved On: 11.04.2022
Pronounced On: 30.06.2022
CORAM:
Hon'ble Sh. Jayesh V. Bhairavia, Member (J)
1. Nandaben Kantibhai Parmar,
Wd/o Kantibhai Parmar,
Aged 47 years, Residing at C-1-124,
Ambica Niketan Society,
Near Maneja Crossing,
Vadodara - 390 001.
...Applicant
(By Advocate Mr. Joy Mathew)
Vs
1. Union of India,
Notice through its Secretary,
Ministry of Defence,
New Delhi - 110 011.
2. The Principal Civil Defence, Accountant (P)
Draupadi Ghat, Allahabad - 211 014.
3. The Air Officer Commanding,
36 Wing Air Force,
Air Force Station, Makarpura P.O.
Vadodara - 390 014.
...Respondents
(By Advocate Mr. H. D. Shukla)
:: 2 :: O.A./451/2017
ORDER
BY THE COURT :
1. Aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order dated 01.02.2017 (Annex.A/1) passed by respondent no.2 whereby the application /proposal submitted for grant of family pension by the applicant, who is widow of deceased Shri Kantibhai came to be returned on the ground that service of her late husband was not regularized, hence, the applicant has filed the present OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking following relief:-
"8.(A) declaring that the applicant is entitled to family pension from the date of death of her husband on 05.11.2015 with all consequential benefits, arrears of dues etc. and granting the said benefit with 12% interest;
(B) declaring the deceased husband of the applicant, Shri Kantibhai Madavbhai Parmar be deemed to be regularized in service on completion of 3 years of continuous service after the grant of temporary status on 28.01.1998; and/or Directing the respondents to regularized the service of the deceased employee w.e.f 29.01.2001 and (C) passing any other appropriate order.
2. The facts in brief, as pleaded in the O.A., are as under :-
2.1 The applicant‟s husband late Kantibhai was initially engaged by the Department as Causal Labour in the year 1992.
Thereafter, as per the instructions and the guidelines of the Scheme called "Causal Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status & Regularization) Scheme of Government of India, 1993) [for short „the Scheme of 1993‟‟] the respondent No.3 vide order dated 28.01.1998 granted Temporary Status w.e.f. 01.09.1993 to the husband of the applicant (Annex.A/2).
2.2 Thereafter, applicant‟s husband continued to work as "Safaiwala" Casual Labour with Temporary Status till he passed away on 05.11.2015. During his service tenure, the respondents had been deducting certain amounts every month towards Provident Fund contribution (Annexs. A/3 & A/4).
:: 3 :: O.A./451/2017
2.3 After the death of her husband, the applicant came to know that
the respondents had granted family pension and the terminal dues to other similarly situated widow of causal labourers, who expired while working as Casual Labour with Temporary Status. Therefore, the applicant approached the respondent No.3 and had submitted an application along with all necessary documents for grant of family pension and DCRG (Annexs.A/5 to A/8).
2.4 The application/claim of the applicant for grant of family pension to her came to be returned by respondent no.2 vide impugned order dated 01.02.2017 (Annex.A/1), on the ground that as per the instructions contained in the appointment letter dated 27.04.1996 issued to the husband of applicant, i.e., Sh. K. M. Parmar, 50% of the service rendered by him under Temporary Status, would be counted for the purpose of retirement benefits after regularization. Further, it has been stated in the impugned order that as per the instructions contained in the O.M. dated 16.10.2014 issued by DoP&T, the HoO may propose and get sanction of regularization of post.
3. The learned counsel Sh. Joy Mathew for applicant mainly submitted as under:-
3.1 The respondent had granted family pension and the DCRG to the similarly placed widow of the casual labourers with T.S. who died in harness including in the case of Smt. Vidhya Jadhav whose husband died in harness while working as casual labour with T.S. In this regard, he placed reliance on PPOs issued in favour of widows of such employees (Annexs.A/4 to A/9).
It is submitted that the respondents department had granted family pension and other terminal benefits to the widow of similarly placed deceased employees, therefore, the reasons assigned in the impugned order including the ground :: 4 :: O.A./451/2017 about the over age of the husband of applicant for the purpose of regularization and not extending the benefit of pension and family pension, are harsh in nature, discriminatory and it amounts to deprive the poor applicant for her legitimate right to receive benefit of family pension and other terminal benefits. 3.2 By placing reliance on the order passed by this Bench in the case of Smt. Vallam Vadia Vs. UOI & Ors., reported in 2003 (2) SLJ 271 CAT (Annex. A/10), learned counsel submits that this Tribunal held that the widow of an ex-temporary employee is entitled to get family pension.
Further, it is submitted that the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case Yashwant Hari Katakkar Vs. Union of India [(1996) 7 SCC 113] had held that the persons/employees having served for the Government for almost two decades, it would be unfair to treat them temporary/quasi-permanent.
He placed reliance on the other judgment passed by Hon‟ble High Court of Gujarat in case Chief Officer, Una Nagarpalika Vs. M.I.H. Baloch and Ors., [2012 (3) SLJ 53 (Guj) (Ann.A/11)], judgment rendered by Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in the case of UOI & Ors. Vs. Jagbiri Devi [W. P. (C) No.1068/2020], UOI & Ors. Vs. Munni Devi [W. P. (C) No.5907/2017 & CM Appeal No.24063/2017 decided on 06.01.2020], order passed by this Tribunal in the case of Krishna Dey Vs. UOI and Ors. [2006 (1) SLJ 201 CAT] and submits that the family members of the casual labourer with TS and died in harness without permanent status are entitled for family pension. Therefore, the claim of applicant ought to have been accepted by the respondents.
4. Per Contra, by filing their counter reply the respondents opposed the averments made by the applicant in the present OA. Learned counsel Mr. H. D. Shukla appearing for the respondents mainly submitted as under:
:: 5 :: O.A./451/2017 4.1 It is submitted that vide letter dated 27.01.2012, the respondent No.3 forwarded the case of husband of applicant along with other similarly placed causal labourers for grant of one time relaxation for regularization as per the instructions contained in letter dated 08.07.2011. In response to it, vide letter dated 31.05.2012 (Annex.R/3), the Head Office, communicated the respondents No.2 & 3 that the deceased employee Sh. Kantibhai i.e. husband of applicant and two other causal labourers had crossed the upper age limit of 25 years prescribed for appointment in erstwhile Group-"D" Post on the day of their initial engagement, therefore, they were not found eligible for regularization against Group-"D" post. Further, the headquarter office requested the respondent No. 3 to intimate their category (General/SC/OBC) to which, these three individuals including applicant‟s husband belong.
4.2 It is submitted that since the deceased employee was initially appointed on 01.09.1992 and as per his date of birth i.e., 01.09.1959, he was aged 33 years at the time of initial engagement, accordingly, he was found over aged as per the official record, therefore, his case for regularization against erstwhile Group-"D" post, was not considered by higher formation even though he was granted Temporary Status on 01.09.1993.
4.3 Learned counsel submits that grant of Temporary Status to Casual Labourers is different than their consideration for regularization in Group-„D‟ post/establishment. Since, the husband of the applicant was over aged at the time of his initial engagement, his case for regularization was not accepted by the higher authority.
4.4 It is submitted that the husband of the applicant continued to work as casual labourer with Temporary Status till he passed away in the year 2015. Again, the claim of applicant was forwarded to PCDA (Pension), Allahabad through LAO (Air :: 6 :: O.A./451/2017 Force), Mumbai vide letter dated 31.08.2016 (Annex.R/4) for issuance of PPO, in favour of husband of the applicant. However, no response was received.
4.5 Thereafter, the Air Headquarter, New Delhi vide its letter dated 07.02.2018 (Annex. A/5) informed the respondent no.3 that some of the casual workers who were granted Temporary Status by the 36 Wing, have been retired earlier without grant of permanent status. In those cases, pension was sanctioned on the basis of temporary service rendered by such causal workers. Therefore, the case of Shri Kantibhai Madhavbhai Parmar and Shri Ramanbhai Bhavjibhai Parmar regarding grant of pensionary benefits may also be dealt accordingly (Annex.R/5). In compliance to the said letter, the service particulars of deceased employee were again forwarded vide letter dated 27.2.2018 (Annex.R/6) for grant of family pension but, as stated herein above, same have not been acceded to. 4.6 Further, it is submitted that the Ministry of Defence vide its letter dated 03.10.2017 (Annex. R/7) informed that the proposal for regularization of casual labourer with temporary status who were working in the various Departments of the Ministry of Defence (including 8 CL-TS under Air HQ), was taken up with DoP&T. The matter has been examined by the DoP&T in consultation with the Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure and, the para 8 of the Scheme of 1993 relating to absorption of casual labourers working with temporary status against existing/future vacancies of erstwhile Group D staff (upgraded to Group C after implementation of the Recommendation of the 6th CPC) came to be amended by allowing certain relaxations including the age relaxation equivalent to the period for which the casual labour with temporary status had worked continuously. Further, it was directed that before grant of amended relaxation to the CL-TS ascertain, whether the workers (including the name of applicant‟s husband was mentioned therein) are still in service :: 7 :: O.A./451/2017 and have not been retrenched/released/dis engaged, (Annex. R/7 colly.).
4.7 It is submitted that for regularization of Service Tenure as regular Group -„D‟ employee in favour of applicant‟s husband was resubmitted by the respondent No.3, but the same was returned by the PCDA (Pension), Allahabad since her husband was not found eligible.
4.8 It is submitted that as per para-5 (v) of the Appendix-2 DoP&T OM dated 10.09.1993 i.e.the Scheme of 1993 half of the service rendered under TS is to be counted for the purpose of retirement benefits only after regularization against permanent post. Since the services of the deceased employee were not regularized thus he was not found eligible for grant of pension. 4.9 Further, it is submitted that the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi [(2006) 4 SCC 1] held in para-47 that if a person enters into Government service on temporary/contractual basis without proper selection, he must aware of the consequences of his appointment. Such a person cannot invoke the theory of legitimate expectation for confirmation on the post while appointment to such post could be made only by following the prescribed selection procedure.
4.10 Further, learned counsel for the respondents by relying upon the observations contained in paras-32 and 33 of the judgment delivered by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of General Manager Vs. Chanda Devi, [ (2008) 2 SCC 108] submits that the Hon‟ble Apex Court held that what was protected by conferring Temporary Status upon a casual employee as his service and by reason thereof the pension Rules are not made applicable. A workman had not been and could not have been given a Status to which he was not entitled to. Therefore, it is submitted that the husband of the applicant was not granted permanent status and in absence of his regularization on a Group -„D‟ post, he/she is not entitled for family pension.
:: 8 :: O.A./451/2017
5. Rejoinder came to be filed by the applicant denying the averments of the respondents stated in their counter-reply. Additionally, it is submitted by the applicant that in fact the dictum laid down by Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Uma Devi, supports the claim of applicant. In para-53 of the judgment, it has been held that as a onetime measure, the authority should take steps to regularize all those Casual Labourers who have completed 10 years‟ of service without Court‟s order. In the present case, husband of applicant continued in service from 01.09.1992 and admittedly, w.e.f. 1.9.1993 he was conferred temporary status and rendered continuous service till he passed away on 05.11.2015. Therefore, he became eligible to receive all the benefits like a Group-"D" employee. The reasons stated by the respondents for denial of family pension that husband of the applicant was over aged, at the time of his initial engagement, is not tenable in terms of the law laid down by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Umadevi-(3) (supra) as also undisputedly, the fact that he rendered more than 22 years with temporary status.
5.1 Further, it is submitted that the respondents had extended pension-family pension to the widow of ex-causal labourers with Temporary Status and they were not granted Permanent Status. The said similarly placed claimants were granted family pension by the respondents either after the Court‟s intervention or without Court‟s intervention, therefore, the applicant is entitled for grant of family pension.
5.2 Further, it is stated that respondents ignored the instructions and the guidelines stipulated in the OM dated 14.04.1987 issued by DoP&T (Annex. RJ/1) with regard to consideration of such claims of employee to grant pension / family pension and erroneously deprived the applicant for grant of family pension.
5.3 Learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance on the order passed by this Tribunal in the case of Smt. Vallam Badia Vs. UOI & ors., wherein reference was also made to the order :: 9 :: O.A./451/2017 passed by Jaipur Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Smt. Nehni Bai Vs. UoI & Ors. [1994 (3) SLJ (CAT) 523] and, the law laid down by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Prabhavati Devi Vs. UoI [1996 (1) SLJ 89], and the Tribunal held that widow of an ex- temporary employee is entitled to get family pension. Further, learned counsel placed reliance on order passed by this Tribunal in OA No.44/2009 dated 30.07.2010 wherein, based on the order passed in the case of Vallam Badia (supra), applicant therein was permitted to resubmit his claim for family pension and respondents were directed to reconsider the same. He also relied upon the common judgment passed by Hon‟ble High Court of Gujarat in case of Chief Officer, Una Nagarpalika Vs. MIH, Baloch & Ors. [reported in 2012 (3) SLJ 53] (Guj.) wherein, it was held by the Court as under :
''it is not that in every case whenever a person is daily-wager or a temporary employee of the government, he would not be eligible or entitled for pension on the contrary as per the policy of the government, even if a person is an ad hoc/temporary employee, after completion of requisite length of service, he is to be treated as eligible for the scheme of pension and once he is treated as eligible for the scheme of pension, and his contribution are being deducted from his salary, he would be eligible for the pension upon completion of the requisite length of service.‟‟ 5.4 Further, it is submitted that the respondents had granted family pension to the widow of casual labourers as directed in identical case i.e. Smt Vidhya Jadhav Vs. UoI & Ors. It is submitted that once a judgment is passed by competent court, and same has been implemented as much as the benefit of family pension were extended to all similarly situated persons, the respondents ought not to have denied the claim of applicant for family pension.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the material placed on record.
:: 10 :: O.A./451/2017
7. In the present case, the following facts are not in dispute:
(i) The deceased employee i.e. Kantibhai M. Parmar (husband of the applicant) was initially engaged as Casual Labour w.e.f 01.12.1988.
(ii) In compliance of the directions of this Tribunal given in certain OAs (OA No. 97/1994, 793/1995 & other connected OAs) as also in terms of the Memorandum dated 10.09.1993 issued under the Scheme of 1993, he was granted "Temporary Status" w.e.f 01.09.1993 (Annex.R/1).
(iii) After rendering 3 years continuous service with "Temporary Status", in terms of Provision of Para 5 (vi) of the Scheme of 1993 late Shri Kantibhai, was treated at par with Temporary Group - „D‟ employees and he was granted pay in the Pay-Band Rs. 5200-20200 with Grade Pay of Rs.1800/-. Further a sum of Rs.10,000/- was deducted from his Salary towards GPF Contribution. (Annex. A/3).
(iv) The Pay Slip (Annex. A/3), the date of retirement of the applicant is mentioned as 31.08.2019.
(v) The husband of the applicant continued to work as Casual Labour with Temporary Status till his death i.e., on 05.11.2015.
8 The provisions contained in Para 5 of the Scheme of 1993 provides certain benefits in favour of the casual labourers working with temporary status such as :
Para 5(v) prescribes that 50% of the service rendered under TS, would be counted for the purpose of retirement benefits after their regularization.
Para 5(vi) stipulates that „‟after rendering three years‟ continuous service after conferment of Temporary Status, the casual labourers would be treated on par with temporary Group „D‟ employees for the purpose of contribution to the General Provident Fund, and would also further be eligible for the grant of Festival Advance/Flood Advance on the same conditions as are applicable to temporary Group „D‟ employees, provided they furnish two sureties from permanent Government servants of their department‟.
:: 11 :: O.A./451/2017 Further, Para 8 of the said Scheme of 1993 prescribes the procedure for filling up of Group D posts including from amongst casual workers with the temporary status which reads as under:
"8. Procedure for filling up Group „D‟ posts
(i) Two out of every three vacancies in Group „D‟ cadres in respective offices where the casual labourers have been working would be filled up as per extant recruitment rules and in accordance with the instructions issued by Department of Personnel & Training from amongst casual workers with temporary status. However, regular Group „D‟ staff rendered surplus for any reason will have prior claim for absorption against existing/future vacancies. In case of illiterate casual labourers or those who fail to fulfill the minimum qualification prescribed for post, regularization will be considered only against those posts in respect of which literacy or lack of minimum qualification will not be a requisite qualification. They would be allowed age relaxation equivalent to the period for which they have worked continuously as casual labourer."
9. It emerges from record that O/o respondent No.3 by way of a proposal/letter dated 27.01.2012 had forwarded the case of casual labourers working with TS for their regularization in group D post including the case of husband of the applicant herein before the Head Office, New Delhi. In response to it, the DDPC-IV, AOP HQ, New Delhi, vide its letter dated 31.05.2012 (Annex. R/3), informed the respondent No.3 that on perusal of the details of Casual Labourers three individuals including the husband of the applicant, were found to have been crossed upper age limit of 25 years on the date of their initial engagement. Further, it was requested vide said letter that to intimate whether the applicant belongs to General/SC/ST/OBC category for the purpose of granting one time relaxation for regularization in a Group D post to them.
In this regard, it is noticed that undisputedly, the deceased employee i.e, Late Shri Kantibhai Parmar, husband of applicant herein belonged to SC category and was engaged as Casual Labour in the year 1988.
:: 12 :: O.A./451/2017 Subsequent to it, as per the Scheme of 1993, considering his continuous engagement, was conferred the temporary status not only that, on completion of three years‟ continuous service with temporary status, he was treated on par with Group D employees and was paid equal grade, he became eligible to be considered for regularization under the Scheme of 1993. However, after rendering more than two decades to the Government, the respondent Department raised the plea that at the time of his initial engagement, he crossed the upper age and denied him regularization. The said approach on the part of respondents, in the opinion of this Tribunal, is contrary to the object of the Scheme of 1993. Unfortunately, the respondents did not place any material on record with regard to compliance of the directions contained in the letter dated 31.05.2012.
10. At this stage, it is apt to mention that the respondents in para-3 of their reply, had categorically admitted that the applicant was initially engaged as Casual Labour w.e.f. 01.12.1988 and he was granted temporary status w.e.f. 01.09.1993 under the Scheme of 1993. In fact, before the deceased employee i.e. husband of the applicant herein was granted temporary status, he had rendered 5 years service as casual labour. Thereafter, he was conferred temporary status w.e.f. 1.9.1993 and since then till he expired on 5.11.2015 he rendered continuous another 22 years in total he rendered 5 + 22 = 27 years continuous service. However, his case for regularization was not finalized by the respondents.
11. It emerges from the record that the Ministry of Defence (Dept. of Defence) „‟D‟‟ (Civ-II) vide communication dated 03.10.2017 (Annex. R/7) informed the respondents that consolidated proposal for regularization of Casual Labourers with Temporary Status, working in the various establishments of Ministry of Defence, was taken up with DoP&T and in consultation with Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure, it has been decided by the DoP&T vide OM dated 12.09.2017 that the provisions of para-8 of the OM dated 10.09.1993 :: 13 :: O.A./451/2017 (i.e. DoP&T‟s Scheme, 1993 for grant of Temporary Status and regularization) are relaxed which reads as under:-
"Two out of every three vacancies in the pr-revised Group D Pay Scales replaced by the revised pay structure of grade pay of Rs. 1800/- in the pay band PB-1, in respective offices where casual labourers have been working would be filled up as per extant recruitment rules and in accordance with the instructions issued by DOPT from amongst casual labourers with temporary status who possess the minimum prescribed qualification of Matric or ITI. However, erstwhile regular Group D staff (since upgrade to Group C after implementation of recommendation of 6th Central Pay Commission) rendered surplus for any reason will have prior claim for absorption against, existing / future vacancies. In case of illiterate casual labourers with temporary status, or those who fail to fulfill the minimum qualification prescribed for the posts, regularization will be considered only after imparting the requisite training by the respective administrative departments in terms of MOF‟s O.M. No 1/1/2008-IC dated 24.12.2008. They would be allowed age relaxation equivalent to the period for which they have worked continuously as casual labourers."
Further, in the said letter, it was stated that before grant of benefit of relaxation as provided in the amended para 8 of the Scheme of 1993, the concerned office was required to ascertain whether the casual labour is still in service and have not been retrenched/released / disengaged in the intervening period and he fulfill all conditions prescribed in CL-TS Scheme 1993. It will not be out of place to mention here that the claim/proposal for grant of retiral benefits under the Scheme was pending since long even before the husband of the applicant expired and, he ought to have been granted one time age relaxation by considering his long uninterrupted services as CL-TS for regularization.
12. At this stage, it is appropriate to refer the judgment passed by Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Narendra Kumar Tiwari and Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and Ors. [(2018) 8 SCC 238] wherein, answering the challenge to the order passed by High Court of Jharkhand relating to the non regularization of daily wage or contract :: 14 :: O.A./451/2017 workers on different posts, the Hon‟ble Apex Court after considering the law laid down in the case of Umadevi(3) [(2006) 4 SCC 1] and in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. M.L. Kesari [(2010) 9 SCC 247 ] in paras 7 to 10 held as under :-
„‟(7) The purpose of intent of the decision in Umadevi (3) was therefore two fold, namely, to prevent irregular or illegal appointments in the future and secondly, to confer a benefit on those who had been irregularly appointed in the past. The fact that the State of Jharkhand continued with the irregular appointments for almost a decade after the decision in Umadevi (3) is the clear indication that it believes that it was all right to continue with irregular appointments, and whenever required terminate the service of the irregularly appointed employees on the ground that they were irregularly appointed. This is nothing but a form of exploitation of the employees by not giving them the benefits of regularization and by placing the sword of Damocles over the head. This is precisely what Umadevi (3) and Kesari sought to avoid.‟‟ (8) If a strict and literal interpretation, forgetting the spirit of the decision of the Constitution Bench in Umadevi (3), is to be taken into consideration then no irregularly appointed employee of the State of Jharkhand could ever be regularised since that State came into existence only on 15th November, 2000 and the cut-off date was fixed as 10th April, 2006. In other words, in this manner the pernicious practice of indefinitely continuing irregularly appointed employees would be perpetuated contrary to the intent of the Constitution Bench.
(9) The High Court as well as the State of Jharkhand ought to have considered the entire issue in a contextual perspective and not only from the point of view of the interest of the State, financial or otherwise - the interest of the employees is also required to be kept in mind.
What has eventually been achieved by the State of Jharkhand is to short circuit the process of regular :: 15 :: O.A./451/2017 appointments and instead make appointments on an irregular basis. This is hardly good governance.
(10) Under the circumstances, we are of the view that the Regularisation Rules must be given a pragmatic interpretation and the appellants, if they have completed 10 years of service on the date of promulgation of the Regularisation Rules, ought to be given the benefit of the service rendered by them. If they have completed 10 years of service they should be regularised unless there is some valid objection to their regularisation like misconduct etc. (11) The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is set aside in view of our conclusions. The State should take a decision within four months from today on regularisation of the status of the appellants. The appeals are accordingly disposed of.
From the above dictum, as laid down by Hon‟ble the Apex Court, it can be seen that Regularisation Rules must be given a pragmatic interpretation. In the present case, undisputedly, the husband of the applicant had completed more than 22 years of continuous service with Temporary Status and expired in harness, his case for regularization ought to have been considered by the respondents by granting the age relaxation in terms of the Scheme of 1993 pragmatically as also the claim for grant of family pension to his widow i.e., applicant herein.
13. Further, it is noticed that in identical cases, various Tribunals and High Courts after considering the provisions of the Scheme of 1993, and the provision of CCS (Pension) Rules 1972 held that the persons/employees having served the Government for almost two decades, it would be unfair to treat him temporary / quasi-permanent. Further, it was held that such casual labours without permanent status and his family members are entitled for grant of pension/family pension.
14. It is appropriate to refer the judgment passed by Hon‟ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Chief Officer, Una Nagarpalika Vs. M.I.H. :: 16 :: O.A./451/2017 Balloch & Ors [reported in 2012 (3) SLJ 53 (Guj.)] wherein, it was held that :
"...... it is not that in every case whenever a person is daily wager or a temporary employee of the Government, he would not be eligible or entitled for pension. On the contrary as per the policy of the Government, even if a person is an ad hoc / temporary employee, after completion of requisite length of service, he is to be treated as eligible for the scheme of pension and once he is treated as eligible for the scheme of pension, and his contribution are being deducted from his salary, he would be eligible for the pension upon completion of the requisite length of service. Therefore, there is no absolute bar operating upon the entitlement of the pension by the employees of the then Gram Panchayat, who are treated as for all purpose covered by the scheme of pension for the contribution from their salary and same position continued until they reach to the age of superannuation or until the end of their service."
15. At this stage, it is appropriate to mention that the provisions of Sub Rule (2) of Rule (10) of Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 stipulates that in the event of death of temporary Government servant while in service, his family shall be eligible for Family Pension and Death-cum-Retirement-Gratuity at the same scale and under the same provisions, as are applicable to permanent Central Civil Government Servants under the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965. Further, by considering the said provisions in identical cases, the Patna Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Krishna Dey Vs. UOI & Ors. [2006(1) SLJ 201 CAT] by referring the law laid down by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Yaswant Hari Katakkar Vs. UOI & Ors., Prabhavati Devi Vs. UOI & Ors., [1996 SCC (L&S) 369], the case of Vallan Badia Vs. UOI & Ors. and other judgments, categorically held that the dependants of a temporary government servant who had rendered continuous long service and dying in harness, would be entitled for Family Pension.
:: 17 :: O.A./451/2017
16. In view of above discussions and in the light of law laid down by Hon‟ble the Apex Court and various High Courts as referred hereinabove, this Tribunal, considering the matter in entirety, is of the opinion that necessary steps for ex post facto regularization, of services of the husband of the applicant herein i.e., late Shri Kantibhai Parmar be initiated by the respondents.
17. Accordingly, the O.A. is partly allowed to the extent that the respondents shall re-examine the case of husband of the applicant for according ex post facto sanction as a erstwhile Group D Staff (or for upgraded post on implementation of Recommendations of 6 th CPC) for grant of retiral benefits including family pension to the applicant herein in the light of discussions made herein above, within three months positively from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
18. In view of above directions, the O.A. stands disposed of accordingly.
No order as to costs.
(Jayesh V Bhairavia) Member(J) PPS